+menu-


  • Category Archives When is a Taking a Taking?
  • 2017 Clallam Co SMP BOCC RCW 90.58.590

    Discovery Dec 8, 2017

    Under RCW 90.58.590 Clallam County BOCC has this option on the 2017 SMP Update.

    Local governments authorized to adopt moratoria

    Recognizing the fundamental role and value of properly exercised moratoria, the legislature intends to establish new moratoria procedures and to affirm moratoria authority that local governments have and may exercise when implementing the shoreline management act, while recognizing the legitimate interests of existing shoreline-related developments during the period of interim moratoria.”[ 2009 c 444 § 1.]

     (3) A moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the moratorium or control is developed and made available for public review.

    Intent—2009 c 444: “The legislature recognizes that cities and counties have moratoria authority granted through constitutional and statutory provisions and that this authority, when properly exercised, is an important aspect of complying with environmental stewardship and protection requirements.

    —————————————————————————-

    The Clallam County BOCC has this option on the 2017 SMP Update.

    And,  most certainly the Citizens of Clallam County have provided  727  Public comments with enough local issues, circumstances and irregularities in the 2017  SMP Update Draft….

    To request the Clallam County WA  BOCC   use  their moratoria authority under RCW 90.58.590

    to  remedy the critical issues, imposed in and on the citizens in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and Dec 13, 2017 including but not limited to,

    2017 SMP Update 727 Comments

    —————————————————————————-

    RCW 90.58.590

    Local governments authorized to adopt moratoria—Requirements—Public hearing.

    (1) Local governments may adopt moratoria or other interim official controls as necessary and appropriate to implement this chapter.
    (2)(a) A local government adopting a moratorium or control under this section must:
    (i) Hold a public hearing on the moratorium or control;
    (ii) Adopt detailed findings of fact that include, but are not limited to justifications for the proposed or adopted actions and explanations of the desired and likely outcomes;
    (iii) Notify the department of the moratorium or control immediately after its adoption. The notification must specify the time, place, and date of any public hearing required by this subsection;
    (iv) Provide that all lawfully existing uses, structures, or other development shall continue to be deemed lawful conforming uses and may continue to be maintained, repaired, and redeveloped, so long as the use is not expanded, under the terms of the land use and shoreline rules and regulations in place at the time of the moratorium.
    (b) The public hearing required by this section must be held within sixty days of the adoption of the moratorium or control.
    (3) A moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the moratorium or control is developed and made available for public review. A moratorium or control may be renewed for two sixmonth periods if the local government complies with subsection (2)(a) of this section before each renewal. If a moratorium or control is in effect on the date a proposed master program or amendment is submitted to the department, the moratorium or control must remain in effect until the department’s final action under RCW 90.58.090; however, the moratorium expires six months after the date of submittal if the department has not taken final action.
    (4) Nothing in this section may be construed to modify county and city moratoria powers conferred outside this chapter.
    NOTES:
    Intent2009 c 444: “The legislature recognizes that cities and counties have moratoria authority granted through constitutional and statutory provisions and that this authority, when properly exercised, is an important aspect of complying with environmental stewardship and protection requirements.
    Recognizing the fundamental role and value of properly exercised moratoria, the legislature intends to establish new moratoria procedures and to affirm moratoria authority that local governments have and may exercise when implementing the shoreline management act, while recognizing the legitimate interests of existing shoreline-related developments during the period of interim moratoria.” [ 2009 c 444 § 1.]
    —————————————————————

    Comments and questions on the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update can  still be submitted individually to the elected county representatives:

    bpeach@co.clallam.wa.us – rjohnson@co.clallam.wa.us – mozias@co.clallam.wa.us


  • SMP Update Concerned? Dec 9, 2017

    To whom the SMP Update may concern: Dec 9, 2017
     IF YOU ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE ….. KEEP READING
     ——————————–

    On May 18, 2011 ESA ADOLFSON PAID CONSULTANT/COMPLIANCY EXPERT MARGARET CLANCY gave “HER”  SMP Update presentation to Clallam County Planning Commission

    ——————————-
    I was the only person/private citizen in attendance for the whole presentation.
    ——————————-
    ESA ADOLFSON PAID CONSULTANT/COMPLIANCY EXPERT MARGARET CLANCY gave another slide show and presented “HER” side of the SMP update.
    Including her selective hearing and understanding of the comments of the public, made at public SMP meetings.
     ————————————————————-
    ESA ADOLFSON PAID CONSULTANT/COMPLIANCY EXPERT MARGARET CLANCY insinuated in her presentation that private property owners are too stupid/dumb/uninformed to know how to build on, or develop their own property….
    —————————————–
    And in doing so, she insinuated that the Clallam County Dept of Community Development (DCD), the Planning Commission, local government et al. is too stupid/dumb/uninformed to know how to permit building  or development in and on Clallam County property.
    —————————————————-
    And that it necessary for the SMP Update to impose the setbacks for the management, and control of Clallam County private property building and development for the owner’s, protection and safety.
    ———————————————-

    Nov 9, 2017 I met with ELECTED CLALLAM COUNTY DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn We spoke for about an hour…

    The bottom line… pretty much went like this.

    Mary Ellen said, “WE HAVE TO LEAVE THIS 2017 DCD 2017 SMP UPDATE TO THE PROFESSIONALS”…..

    ———————————————————————-

     IF YOU ARE  CONCERNED ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE  Dec 9, 2017

    SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE BOCC smp@co.clallam.wa.us

     ———————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:57 AM
    Subject: May 18, 2011 – SMP Presentation to Clallam County Planning Commission
     
    To whom it may concern: Dec 9, 2017
    I did attend the  Wednesday:  May 18, 2011 – SMP Presentation to Clallam County Planning Commission (CCPC), Clallam County Courthouse Room 160, Port Angeles, 6:30 p.m. http://www.Clallam.net/RealEstate/html/planning_commission.htm
    ——————————————–
    May 18, 2011 – SMP Presentation to Clallam County Planning Commission (CCPC),
    There are (9) members on the Planning Commission.
     1. Robert Miller
    2. Scott Clausen
    3. Mel Riden
    4. Gary Gleason
    5.Tom Montgomery
    6. Nancy Ester
    7. Leo Leonard
    8. Connie Boubay  NEW (spelling?)
    9. Jane Heilman
    Clallam County Planning Commission
    I have never seen any of them before.
    Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
    Steve Grey attended, Margaret Clancy gave another slide show and presented “HER” side of the SMP update.
    Including her selective hearing and understanding of the comments of the public, made at public SMP meetings.
    ——————–
    Steve did introduce me as a member of our Advisory Committee.
    Steve said he would put Margaret’s slide presentation  to the CCPC on line for us.
    The 17.1% or less of Clallam County that is regulated and controlled by the SMP update has been divided into 18 areas/drift cells.
    ——————————-
    Margaret’s ESA Adolfson  SMP update priories are,
    1. Physical (manage, regulate and control)
    2. Ecological (manage, regulate and control)
    3. Land use.(manage, regulate and control)
    —————————-
    In Margaret’s own words Clallam County Marine shorelines are,
    1. Very little shoreline modification
    2. Very healthy vegetation (but the update needs more for erosion, landslides and hazard areas)
    3. More healthy then Puget Sound.
    ———————————–
    So? what do we do with for restoration on “NO NET LOSS” when we don’t have any?
    ———————————————
    Margaret  did her, the cliff slides, the wind  blow, the sand is deposited.
    The SMP must have Kelp bed protection 200 feet out into the straits.
    ————————————————
    She did her, for private property owner’s, their own safety and protection, the SMP needs management, setbacks and control of our bluffs, rivers and flood plains. And the scary story about FEMA, NO flood insurance and protecting the fish?
    ——————————————
    Then there were bulk heads, (rip rap was not mentioned), Per Margaret, the SMP update needs the setbacks for  management, and control of private property for the owner’s, protection and safety.
    —————————————–
    The new member Bonnie asked, “Doesn’t the WAC already protect single family dwellings?  (Actually it is an RCW). Yes, Margaret did say there was some protection.
    ————————————————
    I wish I could quote the woman that spoke at the 4C meeting. We are not teenagers, etc. we managed to buy the property and pay the taxes, etc. etc.
    ——————————————————–
    Margaret insinuated in her presentation (the usual) that private property owners are too stupid/dumb/uninformed to know how to build on, or develop their own property and that it necessary for the SMP update to impose the setbacks for the management, and control of private property for the owner’s, protection and safety.
    ——————————————-
    A total hands off of any forest management in the SMP.
    Green Crow and Harry Bell were mentioned regarding new planning commission members (I believe it was politically motivated), A members concern about changing forest land designation and how unplanned development could affect the Planning Commission..
    ———————————————-
    Margaret used the words “RISK OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT”
    Lake Sutherland, per Margaret, there has been very little discussion on the Lake Sutherland so far (no mention of the Jan 26, 2011 focus group meeting), a small group meeting (at the Senior Center)
    Her statistics on Lake Sutherland.
    1. 471 parcels
    2. 380 developed
    3. 203 docks
    ———————————————–
     
    No mention of the fear of the people at the lake. Nothing about Non-Conforming, white State boats patrolling, pictures taken of homes, docks and property, airplanes,  trespass or selective enforcement.
    ———————————————
     
    Morse Creek flood plain and migration line of the creek were discussed.  Repeated more then once, For private property owner’s, their own safety and protection, the SMP needs management, setbacks and control of our creeks, rivers and flood plains. And the scary story about FEMA, NO flood insurance and protecting the fish?
    ————————————————–
    An inappropriate remark about “Spees” was made by one of the members.
    ——————————————————————-
     
    Some confusing/misleading pie, bar charts and statistics were used. Like the % of Marine land parcels for development, dividable and not, west end and east, kelp beds.(out in the water) etc.
     
    Margaret’s closing  “THE HEALTH OF”
    1. Ecgology
    2. Fish
    3. Water
    4. Birds
    5. Land
    6. Kelp
    “NOT MENTIONED
    1. The Economy
    2. Taking of Value of Private Property
    3. Consequences of a 200 foot setbacks = non-conforming
    5. The Actual Public and Advisory comments
    4. Fear of Government and SMP
    Margaret implied that many people agreed with the  ESA Adolfson’s agenda. She attempted to show how to use the ESA Portal maps.
    Steve said they have received very few public comments.
    PLEASE submit your public comments NOW.
    Pearl Rains Hewett
     IF YOU ARE  CONCERNED ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE  Dec 9, 2017

    SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE BOCC smp@co.clallam.wa.us


  • 6/6/2012 Private Meeting with DOE Bureaucrats

    We had the meeting on June 6, 2012. (4) DOE employees, Gordon White (The WA State Manager of Shoreline Programs) Paula Ehlers (Regional Director ) Peter Skowland and Clallam County DOE rep. Jeffree Steward drove up from Olympia for our private meeting.

    Behind My Back | DOE Private meeting 6/6/2012

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/01/30/doe-private-meeting-662012/

    Jan 30, 2013 – THE WA STATE DOE, STATE POLICY PEOPLE asked Steve Gray Deputy Director Clallam County Department of Community Development for my …

    RED FLAG WARNING

    WA STATE DOE SMP IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF DEPT. OF ECOLOGY

    ON APPEAL, THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF THE APPOINTED DEPT. OF ECOLOGY.

    ——————————————————————-

      Behind My Back | It’s Who They Are That Concerns Me

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/10/17/itswho-theyare-that-concernsme

    Oct 17, 2017 · Behind My Back … AND, IT’S WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US. To be continued…. This entry was posted in A Fearful Reminder, …

    INDEED, THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SMP) IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF APPOINTED BUREAUCRATS IN  WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY (DOE).

    —————————————————————————

    PRIOR TO THAT JUNE 6, 2012 MEETING WITH THE WA STATE DOE, STATE POLICY PEOPLE (THE BUREAUCRATS)

    I made a list of my concerns  as red flag warnings from Pearl Revere

    —————————————————-

    RED FLAG #1

    When American citizens are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me. Jan. 26, 2011 DOE SMP Public Forum.

    ——————————————–

    RED FLAG #2

    When ELECTED OFFICIAL IGNORE THE  FEARS AND CONCERNS of  American citizens , that is unacceptable to me

    1. Senator Hargrove
    2. Rep. Van DeWege
    3. Rep. Tharinger
    4. Clallam County Sheriff Benedict
    5. Clallam County Commissioner Tharinger
    6. Commissioner Mike Chapman
    7. Commissioner Mike Doherty
    8. WA State Attorney General Rob McKenna

    —————————–

    RED FLAG #3

    FEAR AND CONCERNS  WA STATE AND  APPOINTED AGENCIES

    1. WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
    2. AND OTHER UNKNOWN agencies?
    3. WHITE BOATS (identified themselves as for the DOE SMP)?
    4. WHITE BOATS (identified themselves as from the state)?
    5. Ariel surveillance of all Lake Sutherland homes, property and docks?
    6. DNR?
    7. WSDOT (inter agency contract with DFW) inspecting 101 culverts.
    8. DFW illegal trespass on all Lake Sutherland private property.

    —————————

    RED FLAG #4

    WA STATE DOE SMP IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF DEPT. OF ECOLOGY ON APPEAL, THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF THE APPOINTED DEPT. OF ECOLOGY.

     —————————

    RED FLAG #5

    WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY

    1. 1. DOE SMP WAC’S (Over stepping WA State SMP LAW)
    2. Failure to provide an SMP ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CLALLAM COUNTY.
    3. DOE WAC directs Clallam County on how to deny permits to private property owners until they submit to regulations and/or restrictions that may be illegal or unconstitutional at State level.
    4. Page 88 DOE WA State Public Trust Doctrine (DOE unconstitutional creation of law without due process). They admit in writing they have done it once?
    5. DOE approval of Shoreline Management Updates that are in conflict with RCW ______ in the protection of single family residence?
    6. DOE excessive setbacks, taking of private property, non-conforming, loss of value, use and enjoyment.
    7. DOE WAC, denies permitted development of private property and requires the taking of private property for public access.

    ————————————————————————–

    JUNE 6, 2012  MY PRIVATE MEETING WITH WA STATE DOE BUREAUCRATS

    Posted as  DOE PRIVATE MEETING 6/6/12 cont.

    The WA State DOE, state policy people asked Steve Gray Deputy Director Clallam County
    Department of Community Development for my contact information, by name as an individual, Pearl Rains Hewett.

    Regional Director Paula Ehlers called me at home and requested a private meeting with me.

    We had the meeting on June 6, 2012. (4) DOE employees, Gordon White (The WA State Manager of Shoreline Programs) Paula Ehlers (Regional Director ) Peter Skowland and Clallam County DOE rep. Jeffree Steward drove up from Olympia for our private meeting.

    Paula Ehlers told me I was allowed to invite 2-3 people. I invited (7).

    Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
    Dr.Robert Crittenden, biologist, expert witness and paid consultant.
    Dick Piling, Realtor, Republican Chairman of Clallam County
    Harry Bell, Business men’s assoc. He is Green Crow, the company owns a lot of WA State forestland, he is well know at state level SMP Advisory Committee
    Connie Beauvais, Manager of Crescent Water District, informed, active Member of the Appointed Planning Dept.
    MD retired, Karl Spees, SMP Advisory Committee, CAPR 13, very active private property owner
    Attorney Mary Pfaff, Member of the SMP Advisory Committee, had a Dr. appointment and did not attend.

    The WA State DOE Team, was a lot more interested in my guests, than they were in me.
    None of the invited (6) that attended were asked to leave.
    Interesting to note, we had the meeting at the courthouse (Steve Gray reserved the room) On the way into the DOE meeting, we ran into several interesting? interested? people. Sheila Rourke Miller, Jim McEntire and Mike Chapman.

    WHAT WAS THE MEETING AGENDA? Intel?
    DOE? I have no idea?
    I asked all of my invited guests to independently, based on their area of expertise and concerns, to prepare (5) questions for the DOE meeting.

    I personally, showed them the map, graphically demonstrating the SMP TAKING affected of the 175′, 150 plus 10′ setback on Burt Reid’s 7 acre priority feeder bluff private property. I spoke of the other property owners, all 474 of them, up to 88% would become totally non-conforming.

    I asked them, as I pointed to the map, as the US Supreme Court Justices asked an EPA witness in the 9 to zero ruling against the EPA, on the Sackett Case, “If this was your investment property? How happy would you be? What would you do? Just plant a few bushes and walk away?

    I did not take notes, I did listened and made an occasional indignant comment.
    By definition, “indignant” Angry at unfairness angry or annoyed at the apparent unfairness or unreasonableness of something.

    We did agreed that we were all American’s first and we do recognize private property rights.
    WHAT DID WE ACCOMPLISH – LEARN?

    Gordon White told us that, the appointed WA State Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant, (ANOTHER BUREAUCRAT)  is aware of the concerns of the Clallam County private property owners (all 3300 of us)

    WA State DOE is not required to provide an economic impact statement for Clallam County.

    My personal conclusion,
    The DOE is aware of the SMP economic impact on Clallam County government.
    The DOE is aware that they are TAKING private property value without compensation.
    The DOE is aware, that If private property owners keep fighting, we can reduce the setbacks, through our local government.

    My conclusions are based on the following
    18 months of research on line,
    WA State Law, protection of private property
    WAC’S, DOE proposed budget 2010-2013
    WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Lawsuits, WA State Supreme Court Rulings
    United States Supreme Court Rulings
    Pacific Legal Foundation battles and BIG WINS
    documented information on many other WA State SMP’S,
    “Conspiracy Exposed” George C. Rains Sr.
    “Access Denied to inholder property”,
    Attending county meetings, public forums,
    Reading every word of the Clallam County DOE SMP Update and every SMP Public Comment,
    Clallam County Chapter 35,
    Water rights, reserved water rights,
    60 years of recorded history from George C. Rains Sr.
    To name just a FEW areas I have researched, questioning, challenging, communicating and disseminating all of it. (can what I know hurt them?)

    I have great things going for me.
    I AM AN AMERICAN
    I AM NOT AFRAID OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DO TO ME.
    I freely play, the one card I have, guaranteed to me by the United States Constitution
    FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    American’s working together to protect Constitutional and private property rights, they (light candles) by disseminating, research, keep us informed, reform us, post emails, encourage and support our FREEDOM.
    Karl Spees, CAPR 13
    Lois Krafsky-Perry, Citizen Review Online.
    Sue Forde Citizen Review Online
    Marv Chastin

    This entry was posted in Private Property Rights, Shoreline Management Plan, WA State Dept. of Ecology.

    ——————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  OCT 19, 2017

    WHAT ARE “YOU” GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT 2017 SMP UPDATE?

    WHAT AM I GOING TO ABOUT IT?

    THE USUAL……

    Post this 2017 SMP Update comment on behindmyback.org

    Then, email it to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners, at:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  and others.

    To be continued…


  • WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    WA DOE $50 Public Comment Recording Fee?

    1. Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections. 
    2. All letters of protest will become public record. 
    3. Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable. 
    4. Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611,
    5. within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,  AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD,  ON MY WEBSITE.

    ————————————————————-

    TAKE NOTICE STEVENS COUNTY WE MUST  PROTEST OR OBJECT WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    ———————————

    TAKE NOTICE GRANT COUNTY WE  MUST PROTEST OR OBJECT  WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    ————————————————————-

    I GOT MY  PUBLIC NOTICE IN A PRIVATE EMAIL ON TUES JULY 11, 2017

    The email said,  So whatever we can pull together ASAP will be helpful. 

    I SUGGEST WE START HERE….

    EMAIL YOUR, OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS AND PROTESTS  REGARDING THE WA STATE DOE WATER RULERS NEW $50 COMMENT RECORDING FEE,  TAKE NOTICE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND CITY.

    INDEED,  EMAIL  OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS  AND PROTESTS  SENT TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, ARE LEGALLY RECORDED DOCUMENTATION AND THEY ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. 

    ————————————————————————————

    THIS DOE $50.00 FEE  TO PROTEST OR OBJECTION AND  TO RECORD PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER DOE WATER APPLICATION NO. G3-30736 IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.

     IT’S JUST NEW TO VOTING TAXPAYING CITIZEN WATER USERS.

    ———————————————————————

    HOW WA STATE DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WORKS, OR NOT?

    Somebody found something, and read something in  the Chewelah Independent, a newspaper in Stevens County WA on June 22nd 2017 that was placed by the Dept. of Ecology. 

    Indeed, I got my PUBLIC NOTICE in a private email on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS COMMENTS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    WORD GETS AROUND IN CYBERSPACE (eventually)

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE ON PUBLIC COMMENT MY WEBSITE.

     —– Original Message —–

    From: XXX

    To: XXX

    Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    Subject: SCPRG Update

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State DOE From TAXATION TO FEE-DOM

    ——————————————————————————-

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ————————————————————————- 

    OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $50 RECORDING FEE PAYABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, CASHIERING UNIT, P.O. BOX 47611, OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————–

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA. NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE: 

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————–

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A)

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 Pub: June 13 & 20, 2017

    —————————————————————————

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA

    NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE:  That STEVENS COUNTY of Colville, WA, on February 11, 2015, under Application No. G3-30736 applied to appropriate public waters, subject to existing rights, from multiple wells in the amount of 3,350 gallons per minute for continuous multiple domestic and industrial supply.

    That source of the proposed appropriation is located with the Colville River Water Resource Inventory Area, Stevens County, Washington.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A) TAKE NOTICE: Central Terminals, LLC of Moses Lake has made an APPLICATION FOR CHANGE/TRANSFER of Water Right to add two (2) additional points of withdrawal (POW), for Groundwater Certificate 399A(A). The Board has accepted the applicaiton for active Board review by assigning its number of GRAN-16-10. The Department of Ecology has assigned tracking number CG3-*01104C(A)@2 to this application. That Ground Water Certificate 399A(A) with a priority date of April 18, 1949 has current authorization for 800.0 gallons per minute, 296.1 acre-feet per year, for Continuous Industrial use.

    The current authorized point of withdrawal is located within the NW1/4SW1/4 Section 20, T19N., R29E., W.M., The proposed additional points of withdrawal will be one (1) existing well located within the NW1/4SE1/4 of section 20, T19N., R29E. W.M., and one (1) new well located within the NE1/4NE/4 of Section 29, T19N, R29E. W.M.

    Any interested party may submit comments, objections, and other information to the Board regarding this application. The comments and information may be submitted in writing or verbally at any public meeting of the Board held to discuss or decide on the application. Additionally, the Board will consider written comments or information provided within thirty (30) days from the last date of publication of this notice, said written comments or information to be provided to its office located at 2145 Basin Street SW, Ephrata, WA 98823. Any protests or objections to the approval of this application may be filed with the Department of Ecology and must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.

     Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 PUB: JUNE 13 & 20, 2017

    ————————————————————————-

    WA State taxes TAXATION from our elected representative

    DOE FEE INCREASES DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ELECTIONS DO CREATE  OUR LEGISLATORS’

    ————————————————————————- 

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feefie-foefum. THERE’S LITTLE REASON EVER TO USE IT? This entry was posted in By Hook or By Crook, …

     OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    WA STATE FROM TAXATION TO DOE FEE-DOM

    —————————————————————————————-

    Clallam County citizens  sent in over a thousand objections  on The DOE Dungeness Water Rule and the DOE sent us 500 pages of too bad so sad.

    —————————————————————

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH THE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)

    —————————————————————————–

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH WA STATE VOTERS COME ELECTION TIME


  • June 20, 2017 Clallam County SMP Update

    My public comment

    Vested Clallam County Citizens have been fearful of how the SMP Update will affect their private property use since Jan 26, 2011.

    INDEED, THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING SHORE LANDS, WETLANDS, ANIMALS OR RIVERS. THIS IS ABOUT CONTROLLING PEOPLE AND THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I WISH PEOPLE WOULD WAKE UP TO WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY, STATE AND COUNTY  WITH REGARDS TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING LAND AND IMPOSING HEAVY REGULATIONS ON ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    I received a phone call from a concerned (fearful) Clallam County citizen last night.

    “Pearl, have you read the new SMP Update Draft? Do you know how Steve Grey and (ESA Consultant) Margaret Clancy have changed it? Do you know what’s in it?”

    We talked for over an hour. My understanding of the most outrageous concerns.

    There shall be 200 foot setbacks based on a concocted 100 year plan?  Clallam County SMP Update Requirements prior to any permitted use of private shoreline property shall include, but not limited to,  up to $20,000.00 in …….

    Geotechnical Engineering

    www.whatisgeotech.org/

    IT INCLUDES, WITHOUT BEING LIMITED TO, the analysis, design and construction of foundations, slopes, retaining structures, embankments, roadways, tunnels, levees, wharves, landfills and other systems that are made of or are supported by soil or rock. Geotechnical Societies by Country.

    ———————————————————-

    The concerned citizen said, Pearl, what are you going to do about this? You have private shoreline property that will be seriously affected.

    IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA, THERE ARE 3300 VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY  OWNERS THAT SHALL BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTRAGEOUS RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY SMP UPDATE, I AM JUST ONE OF THEM.

    THE REAL QUESTION IS WHAT ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    THEY HAVE VOTERS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE AFFECTED BY THE SMP UPDATE, THAT FEEL VIOLATED BY THE RESTRICTED USE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN CLALLAM COUNTY.

    ———————————————————————–

    INDEED, BUT EVEN MORE TO THE POINT, what business does the government have telling a man whether or not he can plow or not on his own land?  This is not about wetlands and animals or rivers.  This is about controlling people and their property.  I wish people would wake up to what is taking place in this country with regards to central government controlling land and imposing heavy regulations on private property.

    —————————————————————

    Farmer Faces $2.8 Million Fine for… Plowing His Field! – Freedom …

    freedomoutpost.com/farmer-faces-2-8-million-fine-for-plowing-his-field/

    May 26, 2017 – A California farmer is facing $2.8 million in fines for plowing his field and planting wheat without a permit. John Duarte of Duarte Nursery is …

    Tim BrownMay 26, 2017

    A California farmer is facing $2.8 million in fines for plowing his field and planting wheat without a permit.

    John Duarte of Duarte Nursery is David going up against Goliath, just like ranchers, farmers and natural health product makers.  His case could set a dangerous precedent that would require farmers to obtain expensive and time-consuming permits from the US Army of Corps Engineers before planting crops.

    “The case is the first time that we’re aware of that says you need to get a (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permit to plow to grow crops,” said Anthony Francois, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. “We’re not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations.”

    However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller sided with the Army Corps last June, in which the US Attorney’s Office is asking for $2.8 million in civil penalties.

    Why?  Who was harmed?  What real and actual crime took place?

    USA Today has the background of the story that began in 2012 when Mr. Duarte planted wheat on land that he bought with his own money, some 450 acres.

    Because the property has numerous swales and wetlands, Duarte hired a consulting firm to map out areas on the property that were not to be plowed because they were part of the drainage for Coyote and Oat creeks and were considered “waters of the United States.”

    Francois conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed but not significantly damaged. He said the ground was plowed to a depth of 4 to 7 inches.

    The Army Corps did not claim Duarte violated the Endangered Species Act by destroying fairy shrimp or their habitat, Francois said.

    This particular freshwater species is unique to California and southern Oregon and has been classified as a threatened species since 1994 because much of its wetlands in California’s Central Valley were converted to cropland or became urban.

    Duarte’s wheat was planted but not harvested because in February 2013 the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued orders to stop work at the site. The agencies claimed Duarte had violated the Clean Water Act by not obtaining a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into seasonal wetlands considered waters of the United States.

    Duarte sued the Army Corps and the state, alleging they violated his constitutional right of due process by issuing the cease and desist orders without a hearing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office counter-sued Duarte Nursery tto enforce the Clean Water Act violation.

    Farmers plowing their fields are specifically exempt from the Clean Water Act rules forbidding discharging material into U.S. waters, Francois said.

    The government claims that Duarte did not plow but rather used a ripper, which dug 10 inches into the soil and they allege that it disturbed portions of the property that included wetland areas.

    “Even under the farming exemption, a discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the farming activities that impairs the flow of the waters of the United States still requires a permit because it changes the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters,” the U.S. attorney said in court filings.

    Francois claims the penalties are unfair because his client believed the plowing exemption allowed him to till the soil.

    “A plain reading of the rules says you don’t need a permit to do what he did,” Francois said. “How do you impose a multimillion penalty on someone for thinking the law says what it says?”

    Indeed, but even more to the point, what business does the government have telling a man whether or not he can plow or not on his own land?  This is not about wetlands and animals or rivers.  This is about controlling people and their property.  I wish people would wake up to what is taking place in this country with regards to central government controlling land and imposing heavy regulations on private property.

    ——————

    The bottom line…

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Just saying, To Local Elected Representatives..

    Changes are taking place in WA DC.

    Don’t lock yourself up by imposing restricted use on Private Property that you can’t defend and uphold in a court of law.


  • 2012 SMP Issues Left on the Table

    June 9, 2017  My Updated Public Comment  CLALLAM COUNTY WA SMP

    Subject: SMP PUBLIC COMMENT JULY 14, 2012  ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES

    July 10, 2012 the 19 SMP Issues left on the table by the Clallam County SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee.

    Two thirds or more of the SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT ARGUMENT, SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENT?

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    ———————————————————–

    The 19 SMP Update unresolved issues left on the table, At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting, Against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    If any of you read this complete July 14, 2012 comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committee members that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County, prior to the 2017 final SMP Draft Proposal, being given to the Clallam County Planning Commission.

    July 10, 2012 The last remark Steve Gray made to me, nearly five years ago was “I just want to get this over with.” 

    ————————————————————

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    SMP Cumulative Impact on People

    Posted on November 18, 2014 10:35 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP
    Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 4:39 PM
    Subject: FW: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    Interested Parties,

    You are receiving this email because you are on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update email notification list.  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 

    An “INTERESTED PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011?” concerned, vested, voting, Clallam County private shoreline property owner and member of SMP Update (citizens) Advisory Committee.

    —– Original Message —–

    Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    THE REST OF THE STORY…….

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    From: pearl hewett

    to  zSMP

    Cc: several

    Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    Subject: SMP COMMENT #292 ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my full comment on the SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Estate

    Concerned Member SMP Advisory Committee

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    The SMP Advisory Committee that  represent the 3300 Clallam County shoreline private property owners is approximately as follows.

    1/3 = 10 private interest groups

    1/3 = 10 paid government employees

    1/3 = 10 SMP Affected taxpaying private property owners (only 8 at this meeting)

    DOES THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPLAINS WHY?

    THEY VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

    (1) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? The undecipherable table with the percentages, the 15% of whatever? It made no sense to me either? One vested citizen, could help with  his knowledge of what he thought it actually was/represented? It would be very helpful to members of the committee.

    The written text related to the undecipherable table below

    1. Minor new development Grading shall not exceed 500 cubic yards; and ii. Land disturbing activities shall not exceed 20,000 square feet, except that on parcels less than five (5) acres, land disturbing activities must not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the gross parcel size; and iii. The total cumulative footprint of all structures on a parcel must be less than 4,000 square feet; and iv. The total cumulative impervious surface area on the parcel must be less than ten (10) . All land disturbing activities must be located on slopes less than fifteen (15) percent; and vi. All land disturbing activities must comply with any critical area buffer and other protection standards established for parcels created by land division.

    ————————————————————————

    (2) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? NOT ADDRESSED

    The limited number of trained specialists,  Engineer’s  comment was in reference to the county SMP  requiring specialists, to perform the mitigation tests. If a property owner could even find one to do the testing? The time delay and cost would be prohibitive.

    ——————————————————————-

    (3) PRESENTED NOT DISCUSSED

    SMP Excessive restrictions on all forms of developments. I am extremely concerned about the additional restrictive requirements written into the SMP update for major development. They are counter- productive to the economic recovery of Clallam County, they restrict the ability of business and citizens to create employment opportunities in both Clallam County and Port Angeles. Why are the Dept. of Community Development and the planning biting off their own feet? Why are they creating these obsessive restrictions on all developments?

    The way Steve was talking it, with all the added bells and whistles, it was to make any form of mitigation for anything totally infeasible, creating a like it or lump it, situation for all development by business or private shoreline property owners.

    ———————————————————————

    (4) PRESENTED- DISCUSSED but NOT ADDRESSED

    The cumulative effect of setbacks SHORELINE, WETLAND and HABITAT   one citizen did a good job when he pointed out an example of the enormous  loss of private property use with the setbacks on Lake Pleasant, in conjunction with the yet undetermined, Clallam County DOE designated WETLANDS.

    ———————————————————————–

     (5) PRESENTED NOT ADDRESSED

    More additional HABITAT setbacks

    IT WAS IMPRESSIVE HOW SMOOTHLY MARGARET AND STEVE JUST ADDED ON THE ADDITIONAL HABITAT SETBACKS, BUT DID NOT MENTION ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    1. Rare, endangered, threatened and sensitive species means plant and animal species identified and listed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as being severely limited or threatened with extinction within their native ranges.
    2. Threatened species means a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, or the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ————————————————————————-

     

    (6)  COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED

    1. Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the County auditor.

    ————————————————————————————

    (7) NO DISCUSSION OR RESOLUTION (not required by law)

    1. Restoration means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of fill, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.

    ————————————————————————————

    (8) DOE DESIGNATED WETLANDS NOT IDENTIFIED OR INCORPORATED

    Wetlands have no boundaries, adjoining wetlands could restrict the use of your property.

    1. Wetlands means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created for non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands created as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities shall be considered as regulated wetlands.

    PROHIBITED EXCEPTION DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED BY RCW

    Provisions for protection SHALL be included in SMP up date.

    1. Revetment means a sloped wall constructed of rip-rap or other suitable material placed on stream banks or other shorelines to retard bank erosion and minimize lateral stream movement.
    2. Rip-rap means dense, hard, angular rock free from cracks or other defects conductive to weathering often used for bulkheads, revetments or similar slope/bank stabilization purposes.

    ————————————————————————-

    (9) DISCUSSED UNDEFINED NO RESOLUTION [insert final date]

    3.1.1 Shoreline Environment Designations

    1. A shoreline environment designation has been assigned to each segment of the shoreline in accordance with this section. The designations are based on the following general factors:
    2. The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the degree of human alteration as determined by the [insert final date] Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and subsequent technical analyses; and

    ——————————————————————

    (10) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

     EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. c. Hazard Tree Removal: Removal of a hazard tree may be allowed in the buffer when trimming is not sufficient to address the hazard. Where the hazard is not immediately apparent to the Administrator, the hazard tree determination SHALL be made after Administrator review of a report prepared by a qualified arborist or forester.

    ——————————————————————–

    (11) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. Invasive Species Management: Removing invasive, non-native shoreline vegetation listed on the Clallam County Noxious Weed List may be allowed in the buffer when otherwise consistent with this Program. The disturbed areas must be promptly revegetated using species native to western Washington. The Administrator SHALL require a vegetation management plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the invasive species removal. The vegetation management plan SHALL  identify and describe the location and extent of vegetation management. For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the vegetation management plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the vegetation management will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the invasive species management area SHALL be clearly defined on the site plan

    ———————————————————————–

    (12) NOT DISCUSSED – ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED

    Taking of Value of view property by limited 20% KEYHOLE view corridor. If 50% of the value of your shoreline property is for the view? Losing 80% the view value will affect the true and real value of your property

    4.2.4 Regulations – Shoreline Buffers

    . 3. Buffer Condition: Shoreline buffers shall be maintained in a predominantly well vegetated and undisturbed condition to ensure that the buffer provides desired buffer functions including shade, habitat, organic inputs, large woody debris, slope stability, water storage, biofiltration, contaminant removal, and fine sediment control. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area shall be vegetated with native trees and shrubs. The remaining twenty percent (20%), or at least fifteen (15) linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater, may be retained as lawn for active use.

    1. Allowed Uses and Buffer Modifications: The Administrator may allow limited clearing, thinning, and/or pruning to accommodate specific shoreline buffer uses and modifications identified in this section. Such allowances shall not require compensatory mitigation provided that the amount and extent of the clearing, limbing, and/or pruning are the minimum necessary to accommodate the allowed use and all other requirements of the Program are met:

    —————————————————————————–

    (13) view corridor NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer

    1. View Corridors: The Administrator may allow limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer to create a view of the shoreline when otherwise consistent with this Program. The removal, pruning, and/or limbing shall not require any ground-disturbing equipment and shall not materially alter soils or topography.

    ————————————————————————-

    (15) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    Administrator shall require a view clearance plan

    The Administrator shall require a view clearance plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the view corridor. The view clearance plan shall identify and describe the location and extent of the proposed tree removal, pruning, and limbing and shall demonstrate compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations (Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices). For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the view clearance plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the proposed removal, pruning, and/or limbing will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the view corridor shall be clearly defined on the site plan.

    1. Private Pathways: Private pathways which provide pedestrian access to the shoreline may be allowed within the buffer provided they are constructed of pervious material, are less than or equal to six (6) feet wide, and follow a route that minimizes erosion and gullying

    ——————————————————————————–

    (16)  NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    Taking of Private property for Public access

    The removal of any reference to  the taking of private property for Public access, Clallam County has the highest public access to public land in WA State. At the Private DOE meeting on June 6, 2012 Gordon White agreed that we have sufficient cause 51% to remove any taking of private property for public access.

    —————————————————————————–

    (17) DISCUSSED AND DISMISSED

    EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal

     As questioned by Rob McKenna, why are the DOE SMP setbacks more restrictive the EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal.

    ——————————————————————————–

     (18) LEGALITY OF 80% TAKING  NOT DISCUSSED NOT ADDRESSED

    ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    1. At least eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area between the structures and the shoreline and/or critical area is maintained in a naturally vegetated condition.

    What provisions have the DOE made to  stay within the LAW?

    “It is now undisputed that the county had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own private property.”CAO’S 65 PERCENT” SEIZURE OF PROPERTY PLF Lauds Supreme Court for “Driving a Stake Through One of the Most Extreme Assaults on Property Rights in the U.S.”

    SEATTLE, WA; March 4, 2009: The Washington Supreme Court

    the CAO limited rural landowners with five acres or more to clearing only 35 percent of their property, forcing them to maintain the remaining 65 percent as native vegetation indefinitely. Rural landowners owning less than five acres were allowed to clear only 50 percent of their parcels. Affected landowners had to continue paying taxes on the portion of the property rendered useless by the CAO.

    —————————————————————————–

    (19) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

     THE PROVISIONS OF WAC173-26-191 ANYTHING THAT MAY BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A STATE LEVEL,

     MAY ALSO BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A COUNTY LEVEL AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

     

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    2 The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline.

    SOME MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES MAY NOT BE FULLY ATTAINABLE BY REGULATORY MEANS DUE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON THE REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE POLICIES MAY BE PURSUED BY OTHER MEANS AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.240.

    SOME DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A SHORELINE PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

     A LOCAL GOVERNMENT EVALUATES A PERMIT APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES AND REGULATIONS AND APPROVES A PERMIT ONLY AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THEM. EXCEPT

    WHERE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN STATUTE, THE REGULATIONS APPLY TO ALL USES AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SHORELINE JURISDICTION, WHETHER OR NOT A SHORELINE PERMIT IS REQUIRED, AND ARE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 AND ENFORCEMENT PURSUANT TO RCW

    90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

    ————————————————————-

    If any of you read this complete comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committees that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County on July 10, 2012,  prior to the final SMP Draft Proposal.

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    IF THE PARTIES DON’T WANT YOU TO DO IT, THE PARTIES WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 


  • POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE and Justice Scalia

    POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE  and Justice Scalia

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ACE (Corps) promulgated in 2016.

    The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.”

    It instructs EPA and the ACE Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    President Trump signed executive order on February 28, 2017 instructs EPA and the Corps to

    “CONSIDER” ADOPTING THE SCALIA TEST FROM RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

    ORDER § 3. SCALIA OPINED IN RAPANOS THAT, “THE PHRASE ‘THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    ————————————————————————

    Notice that Trump signed the EO back at the end of February 2017, and the EPA is JUST NOW sending the information out. It looks like they have deliberately STALLED.

    These statements have to be in by June 19, 2017. Heads up!

    ————————————————————————————

    THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

    IS LOCATED AT 33 CFR 329.4

    • 329.4 General definition.

    Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb (the outgoing phase; when the tide drains away from the shore) and flow (the incoming phase; when water rises again) of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of  navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    The federal definition 40 CFR 230 .3 pertains to the Clean Water Act and waters of the United States.

    WOTUS BY OBAMA

    The definition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) is very dangerous and overreaching. Under section (o), parts of the definition read as follows:
    o) The term waters of the United States means: …

    (ii) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

    (iv) All impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States under this section;

    (vi) All waters adjacent to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section, including  wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters;

    (vii) All waters in paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section where they are determined, on a case-specific basis, to have a  significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. The waters identified in each of paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section are similarly situated and shall be combined, for purposes of a significant nexus analysis, in the watershed that drains to the nearest water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an  adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific significant nexus analysis is required.

    (A)Prairie potholes. Prairie potholes are a complex of glacially formed wetlands, usually occurring in depressions that lack permanent natural outlets, located in the upper Midwest.

    (viii) All waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high tideline or ordinary high water mark of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section where they are determined on a case-specific basis to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. For waters determined to have a  significant nexus, the entire water is a water of the United States if a portion is located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section or within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific  significant nexus analysis is required.

    —————————————————————————————

    WRITING FOR THE COURT IN THE 2014 CLEAN AIR ACT CASE, UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP V. EPA, JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED EPA’S INTERPRETATION UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD BRING ABOUT AN ENORMOUS AND TRANSFORMATIVE EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

    JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance,’” he wrote.
    —————————————————————————————

    OBAMA VETOES GOP ATTEMPT TO BLOCK WOTUS WATER RULE

    By Timothy Cama – 01/19/16 07:22 PM EST

    ———————————————————-

    EPA ‘Waters of U.S.’ Rule Is a Power Grab | National Review

    www.nationalreview.com/article/431134/epa-waters-us-rule-power-grab

    by Rupert Darwall February 11, 2016 4:00 AM. Obama’s power-mad agency claims jurisdiction over land and water use almost everywhere in … EPA, under the Clean Water Act, a statute Congress passed two years after its clean-air sibling. … partially checked, in what has become known as the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS).

    ————————————————————————————————-

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) promulgated in 2016. The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” It instructs EPA and the Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    The Order raises a number of interesting issues. First, it instructs EPA and the Corps to “consider” adopting the Scalia test from Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Order § 3. Scalia opined in Rapanos that, “the phrase ‘the waters of the United States’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    Because Rapanos was a split decision (4–1–4), there is no controlling opinion. The circuit courts, applying the Marks analysis, have concluded that Kennedy’s lone concurring opinion, which focused on the significant-nexus test, is the controlling standard from the case. (A couple of circuits have allowed Kennedy’s or Scalia’s opinion to be used to establish jurisdiction.) All of the circuit courts and almost all of the district courts have rejected the argument that Scalia’s test should be adopted as the sole jurisdictional test. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari numerous times since Rapanos on WOTUS issues, so we have no clarification from the Court on how to interpret the decision.

    IT IS CLEAR WHY THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CHOSEN SCALIA’S TEST—IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE OF JURISDICTION.

     THAN THE KENNEDY TEST, WHICH EPA AND THE CORPS ADOPTED IN THE WOTUS RULE.

    UNDER THE SCALIA TEST, MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS—ESPECIALLY IN THE ARID WEST—WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO  THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) BECAUSE MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS ARE EPHEMERAL OR INTERMITTENT AND ARE THEREFORE NOT “RELATIVELY PERMANENT WATERS.” HEADWATER SYSTEMS COMPRISE A LARGE PART OF THE NATION’S TRIBUTARY SYSTEM. IN PLACES LIKE ARIZONA EVEN THE MAIN CHANNELS ARE DRY MOST OF THE YEAR AND, THEREFORE, MAY NOT MEET THE SCALIA TEST FOR JURISDICTION.

     

    THE SCALIA TEST WOULD LIKELY ALSO REMOVE MANY OF THE NATIONS’ WETLANDS FROM . EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

     

    AS JUSTICE SCALIA SAID “WE EXPECT CONGRESS TO SPEAK CLEARLY IF IT WISHES TO ASSIGN TO AN AGENCY DECISIONS OF VAST ‘ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE,’”

    —————————————————————————-

    President Trump Issues Executive Order Directing EPA to Review the WOTUS Rule

    Thursday, March 2, 2017

    On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to review the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) definition of “Waters of the United States”(WOTUS) Rule (the Rule) (80 Fed. Reg. 37054, June 29, 2015). Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule, Executive Order (Feb. 28, 2017) (EO). The EO directs EPA and ACE to review the WOTUS Rule for consistency with the policies set forth in the EO which specifies that “It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution.” The EO also directs EPA and ACE to “publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the [WOTUS] rule, as appropriate and consistent with law.”

    Pursuant to the EO, EPA and ACE submitted for publication in the Federal Register, a notification of intention to review and rescind or revise the Rule. Notice of Intention to Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule, Environmental Protection Agency and Dept. of Defense, Feb. 28, 2017. The notification will be published in the Federal Register in the coming days.

    THE EO ALSO DIRECTS EPA AND ACE TO CONSIDER INTERPRETING THE TERM “NAVIGABLE WATERS,”IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF JUSTICE SCALIA IN RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). The Rapanos opinion set out two separate standards for CWA jurisdiction. See Rapanos at 715‑718. Justice Scalia, writing for a plurality, determined that the statute should only apply when there is a “continuous surface connection”between “relatively permanent”waters. Id. at 743. Justice Kennedy, on the other hand, determined that jurisdiction should be based on whether a water or wetland possesses “a significant nexus to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.” Id. at 759. Neither standard was supported by a majority, so neither standard has become binding precedent. See Id. at 715-718. Regulators, however, have generally followed Justice Kennedy’s standard,

    AND THUS, A SWITCH TO JUSTICE SCALIA’S STANDARD WOULD REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL EXTENT OF THE CWA. SEE 80 FED. REG. 37054, 37056, 37060-37061 [WOTUS RULE].


  • The Elwha River Limbo Land

    The Elwha River Limbo Land

    SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE?

    ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012  By Lynda V. Mapes  Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    FOR NOW, THE PARK SERVICE, WHICH ALREADY MANAGES 85 PERCENT OF THE ELWHA WATERSHED, IS MANAGING THE LANDS. PARK RANGERS ARE PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OFFERING INTERPRETIVE WALKS ON SOME OF THE PROJECT LANDS, EXCLUDING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, WHICH ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED.

    NO MATTER WHO ENDS UP OWNING THE LAND, MORE THAN 700 ACRES OF IT ALONG THE RIVER AND IN ITS FLOOD PLAIN WILL REMAIN IN ITS NATURAL STATE IN PERPETUITY,

    WITH PUBLIC ACCESS MAINTAINED.

    THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    ——————————————————————

    QUESTION THIS….. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND WAITING IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK LIMBO LAND SINCE AUGUST 10, 2012?

    ACCORDING TO ???? 

    THAT IS “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    READ THE ELWHA ACT, WHAT DID IT PROMISE? CLEAN WATER? HOW MUCH WATER? POWER REPLACEMENT? PUBLIC ACCESS INTO PERPETUITY? 

    WITH ALL THE FALSE NEWS NOW DAYS….

    THIS IS THE LAW, READ IT,  YOU DECIDE…

    Public Law 102-495 102d Congress An Act

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg3173.pdf

    Oct 24, 1992 – 24, 1992. 106 STAT. 3173. Public Law 102-495. 102d Congress. An Act … SHORT TITLE. This Act may be referred to as the “Elwha River Ecosystem … of the Projects and his plans for the full restoration of the Elwha.

    ———————————————————————————-

    ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 at 9:00 pm Updated February 11, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    Elwha tribe finds legendary creation site, wants uncovered land

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE LANDS THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL, including sacred lands of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe?

    Section Sponsor Share story

    By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    SLOWLY EMERGING FROM WHAT USED TO BE UNDER LAKE ALDWELL AND ELWHA DAM ARE SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE.

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS A STATE PARK, A NATIONAL PARK OR A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE. SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    That desire became even more intense last month, with the discovery of the tribe’s creation site. Long passed on in oral tradition, the sacred site is where, by tribal teaching, the Creator bathed and blessed the Klallam people, and where tribal members for generations uncounted sought to learn their future.

    But the site was covered by the waters behind Elwha Dam, and had not been seen by anyone in the tribe since construction of the dam between 1910 and 1913. Many feared it had been destroyed by blasting during dam construction — and some came to doubt if it had ever existed at all.

    Frances Charles, chairwoman of the tribe, said she and other tribal members visited the site last month after receiving a call from National Park Service cultural-resources staff, who believed they had found the site.

    “A group of us walked to the site and actually stood on the rock known to us as the creation site,” Charles said this week. “It was eerie in some ways. We were walking on the soil that had been underwater for 100 years, and witnessing the old cedars. It was emotional, with joy and happiness. We sang a prayer song and an honor song, and had the opportunity to stand there and really praise our ancestors and the elders for telling the stories.”

    To see that those stories actually were true was overwhelming, Charles said.

    “To so many out there, it was a myth,” she said. “To be able to feel the spiritual tie to the land, and know, yes, this is real, the stories that you have heard, they are true. It is very, very powerful and very humbling.”

    The park service also reported this week finding a site in another location within a former reservoir that documents human use as far back as 8,000 years ago, establishing it as one of the oldest known archaeological sites on the Olympic Peninsula. The park service collected material for analysis and reburied the site.

    For the tribe, the recovery of its cultural sites is a deeper dimension of the Elwha restoration, affirming the truth of the tribe’s presence here for so long.

    “The land continues to show us, it speaks,” Charles said. “To be able to go down there and feel the power of the water and the land, and look at a landmark that has been covered for so many years, now being able to breathe.”

    THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    FOR NOW, THE PARK SERVICE, WHICH ALREADY MANAGES 85 PERCENT OF THE ELWHA WATERSHED, IS MANAGING THE LANDS. PARK RANGERS ARE PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OFFERING INTERPRETIVE WALKS ON SOME OF THE PROJECT LANDS, EXCLUDING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, WHICH ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED.

    NO MATTER WHO ENDS UP OWNING THE LAND, MORE THAN 700 ACRES OF IT ALONG THE RIVER AND IN ITS FLOOD PLAIN WILL REMAIN IN ITS NATURAL STATE IN PERPETUITY, WITH PUBLIC ACCESS MAINTAINED. THAT IS ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    But the tribe, if it comes to steward the lands, also would like to use some portions of the remaining property outside the archaeological sites and river corridor for housing or economic development, said Robert Elofson, director of river restoration for the tribe.

    In addition to protecting the tribe’s cultural resources, transfer of the property to the tribe would help the Lower Elwha Klallam realize a long unmet need for an adequate land base, Elofson said.

    When the United States purchased the core of what is now the tribe’s reservation in the late 1930s, the superintendent of the then-Office of Indian Affairs stated that six sections of land, almost 4,500 acres along the Elwha River, would be the appropriate size of the reservation for the tribe — which was far smaller then.

    But in the end, the government acquired only 300 acres for the tribe — and took another three decades to finally convey the land for the tribe’s reservation in 1968, in part because of opposition by sport fishermen.

    The tribe has continued to buy land ever since on its own, and today has about 1,000 acres along the Elwha River. But the reservation still is missing the lands that used to be under Elwha Dam and its reservoir.

    “We lost a lot of land,” said Adeline Smith, one of the oldest living members of the tribe. “There were campsites along the river, and at least two big settlements. The medicinal plants, the berries, the wildlife, they were all part of our life by the river.

    “It was ours and our way of life. I hope someday it will be again.”

    Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or lmapes@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @lyndavmapes.

    Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or lmapes@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @LyndaVMapes. Lynda specializes in coverage of the environment, natural history, and Native American tribes.

    —————————————————————

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    A CLALLAM COUNTY CONCERNED CITIZEN EXPRESSED INTEREST ON MARCH 9, 2017

    THE ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS THAT WERE A PUBLIC TOURIST RECREATIONAL DESTINATION?

    WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE ELWHA RIVER CAMP GROUNDS, FOR PUBLIC CAMPING, PICNICS, FISHING, ALLOWING A PRIVATE WALKS ON PUBLIC TRAILS,  UN-ESCORTED BY ONP PARK RANGERS, PEACEFUL HIKING TRAILS,  SOLITUDE WITHOUT ONP RANGERS INTERPRETATIONS ,  A BOAT LAUNCH, RESTROOMS, A STORE, AND OUR CITIZENS WAY OF LIFE. I HOPE SOMEDAY IT WILL BE AGAIN.”

    THIS IS A  CLALLAM COUNTY CONCERNED CITIZEN EXPRESSING  INTEREST

    Behind My Back | The New Elwha Bridge and Rest Stop?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/03/09/the-new-elwha-bridge-and-rest-stop/

    Mar 9, 2017 – With the replacement of the Elwha River bridge by WSDOT at an … Why stop with just a Clallam County rest stop on the Norm’s Resort Property …

    THESE ARE CONCERNED CITIZEN’S OF CLALLAM COUNTY EXPRESSING  INTEREST

    Clallam County WA | Citizen Review Online

    citizenreviewonline.org/category/clallam-county-wa/

    Posted on March 9, 2017 by Pearl Rains Hewett, www.behindmyback.org. The New Elwha Bridge and Rest Stop? Who knew? What Rest Stop?


  • China Dam Smart? U.S.A. Dam Stupid?

    China Dam Smart?  U.S.A. Dam Stupid?

    CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD

    The Chinese dam policy was to build and keep dams to provide clean renewable electric power, control the dam water and prevent the dam flooding and release the dam water to prevent drought

    HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER CONTROLS THE WORLD?

    WHAT PART OF THIS DAM CHINESE POLICY DID THE DAM US GOVERNMENT NOT UNDERSTAND?

    IT WAS NOT HE WHO “OWNS THE WATER”, WOTUS….

    IT IS”HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER”

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotus-water-runs-down-hill/

    Sep 4, 2015 – “WATERS OF UNITED STATES” POWER GRAB. WOTUS RULE – Pacific Legal Foundation https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus. Pacific Legal Foundation

    DAMS CONTROL WATER. period

    THE STUPID US GOVERNMENT WAS SO “DAM DUMB” THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    Behind My Back | How Dam Dumb is the US Government?

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/17/how-dam-dumb-is-the-us-government/

    Apr 17, 2016CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD. … www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/WOTUS-WATER-RUNS-DOWN-HILL/ … Jun 12, 2013 – ACCORDING TO AMERICAN RIVERS, 65 US dams were …

    THE SAGA OF THE STUPID U.S.A. DAM DESTRUCTION

    Map of U.S. Dams Removed Since 1916 | American Rivers

    https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/restoring…rivers/dam-removal-map/

    Today, many dams that were once at the epicenter of a community’s livelihood are now old, unsafe or no longer serving their intended purposes. Learn how …

    THE ELWHA RIVER DAMS THAT WERE ONCE THE EPICENTER OF OUR COMMUNITY’S LIVELIHOOD, ARE NO LONGER SERVING THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES. period

    THEIR INTENDED DAM PURPOSES?  Protecting and Providing Clallam County’s infrastructure, (the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants)

    Indeed, THE INTENDED ELWHA DAM PURPOSES, Dam cheap, dam clean hydroelectric power, dam renewable energy that kept the dam economy strong, providing a clean water supply, insuring flooding and drought protection, preventing millions of dam dollars of destruction in and on public and private land, property, protecting public access roads, and A COUPLE OF the really big epicenter of our communities livelihood,  THE OLYMPIC HOT SPRINGS ROAD? THE TOURISM, THE ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK THAT KEPT OUR ECONOMY STRONG, INCLUDED TWO BEAUTIFUL LAKES.

    IT’S A DAM SHAME THAT 300,000 TOURISTS  CAN’T GET THERE FROM PORT ANGELES WA.

    LEARN HOW DAM STUPID…….THE REMOVAL OF THE BIGGEST DAM REMOVAL EVER, WORKED OUT FOR PORT ANGELES, CLALLAM COUNTY ETAL., WASHINGTON STATE U.S.A.

    AS PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED “HOW’S THE U.S.A DAM

    SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR YOU?

    SEABURY BLAIR JR. | Elwha too clogged for fish to live

    Seabury Blair Jr.
    Columnist

    Posted: April 15, 2013

     

    Two days after I hiked the sandy, rocky desolation that used to be Lake Mills, as many as 200,000 chinook salmon were killed in what has to be one of the biggest blunders in the history of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

    The year-old salmon were released from the new $16 million Elwha Hatchery run by the state and Lower Elwha Klallam tribe on April 5. Most — if not all — were killed when they tried to swim downstream through the thick gray goop that is the lower Elwha River, created by the removal of two dams built illegally in 1910.

    Though they only had to negotiate 3.5 miles of the river before reaching clearer waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the silt in the river began choking them almost the minute they swam from the crystalline hatchery water into the moving mire that is the Elwha. Hatchery officials reported seeing hundreds of dead smolts lining the riverbank, their gills clogged by the same silt that forced “temporary closure” of a $70 million Elwha River water treatment plant.

    In the Port Angeles Daily News, Mike Gross, Fish and Wildlife biologist, called the release of the salmon “a mistake.” Gross said he suspected the fish suffocated when silt prevented their gills from providing oxygen.

    I imagine it would be akin to trying to breathe volcanic ash for days without a mask, or running a marathon in a massive dust storm.

    Hatchery officials said they checked on the amount of silt in the Elwha on April 4, and determined it was acceptable to release the fish. They said the silt in the river increased overnight.

    I hiked about 3 miles downstream in the desolate bed of the former Lake Mills on April 3, and I don’t need a degree in biology to tell you that no fish could live in that water. The river looked no different when I left the Elwha Campground on April 4.

    For almost 15 miles, the Elwha River carves through a century’s worth of mud, sand and river cobble deposited behind the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams. Above Rica Canyon, at the entrance to the former Lake Mills, the river is the same old blue friend I’ve known for more than 50 years.

    But beginning at the old Lake Mills inlet, the river turns into gray slurry that is poison to any fish. I don’t imagine many wild animals drink from that deadly potion and live, either.

    Fisheries biologists have been releasing coho salmon into Indian Creek, which flows from the west into the Elwha; and Little River, which flows from the east. Both tributaries are about 7 miles upstream from the mouth of the river.

    They’ve reported some of the fish, along with a few chinook they released into Lake Mills before it became the desolation it is today, have survived the gantlet of poison. Now the state is planning to release nearly a million salmon from the hatchery in June.

    About the same time, work on removing the remainder of the Glines Canyon dam is expected to resume, which will surely cause more sediment to be swept downstream. Worse, concrete dust from the dam will be stirred into the mix, making it even more deadly.

    Let us hope the state and tribe can think of a way to get healthy salmon from the hatchery to the Strait before they kill a million more fish.

    Seabury Blair Jr. is the author of Backcountry Ski! Washington; Day Hike! Olympic Peninsula; Day Hike! Columbia Gorge; The Creaky Knees Guide to Washington; the Creaky Knees Guide to Oregon; and Washington Wild Roads. Email Seabury at skiberry@hughes.net.

    ————————————————————————-

    HOW’S THE SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR PORT ANGELES WA?

    Port Angeles to sue Park Service in dispute over Elwha River water …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/port-angeles-to-sue-park-service-in-dispute-over-el

    6 days ago – PORT ANGELES — The Port Angeles City Council has set the stage for … impasse related to the historic removal of the Elwha River dams.

    snippet….City Attorney Bill Bloor said at the council meeting Tuesday that the Park Service has not provided contract information being sought by the city on the $25 million Elwha River surface water intake and treatment facilities.

    ————————————————————-

    Word gets around in cyberspace

    New post on Pie N Politics Siskiyou County CA

    Port Angeles to sue Park Service in dispute over Elwha River water facilities

    by Liz Bowen

    PNP comment:  Port Angeles is a city in and the county seat of Clallam County,

    Washington, United States. With a population of 19,038 as of the 2010 census,[7]

    it is the largest city in the county, according to Wikipedia. It is worth checking out the entire article at the link below.

    It looks like the fed gov. is not fulfilling its obligations. Shock !!! — Editor Liz Bowen

    —————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Pie N Politics page (1)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/07/27/pie-n-politics-page-1/

    Jul 27, 2015 – Pie N Politics page (1) Pie N Politics. Like many areas of the United States, citizens in Siskiyou County are finding government regulations are …

    Aug 19, 2016 – A PLAN TO REMOVE FOUR KLAMATH RIVER DAMS

    TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT FOR FISH AND RIVER COMMUNITIES

    ———————————————————————————

    The removal of  two dams on the Elwha River in WA State  2011-2014 “WAS”  previously the biggest dam removal DISASTER in U.S. History.

    After the removal of the Elwha River Dams.

    Apr 15, 2013 ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY?

    THE QUALITY OF MY PORT ANGELES DRINKING WATER….

    SEABURY BLAIR JR. | Elwha too clogged for fish to live – Kitsap Sun

    http://www.kitsapsun.com/sports/columnists/seabury-blair/356167261.html

    ————————————————————

    YEP, THE ELWHA DAM PROTECTED THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA’S ACCESS INFRASTRUCTURE, THE ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE.

    Battered by Dam Removal – Elwha Bridge

    Posted on January 11, 2017 4:26 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Battered by Dam Removal Elwha Bridge Destroyed

    A DAM TRAGEDY THE ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE

    ———————————————————————

    Flooding is a Dam Shame

    Posted on June 28, 2013 7:31 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    Drought is a dam shame

    China was so dam smart that they built the biggest dam in the world.

    He who controls the water controls the world?

    In the USA the government was and is so dam stupid they decided that hydro electric power was not dam clean, dam cheap, dam renewable dam energy, not dam flood control and not dam drought and dam property loss prevention.

    The dam Chinese government is so dam smart they work in the best interest of the dam people.

    The Chinese dam prevents the dam loss of life, billions of dam dollars in property damage, provides dam cheap, dam clean, dam renewable, dam energy and helps keep their dam economy strong.

    The Chinese dam controls the dam water releases the dam water to eliminate the dam droughts

    What part of this dam Chinese policy does the dam US government not understand?

    THE US GOVERNMENT IS SO DAM DUMB THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM ENDANGERED etal., ad nausaum, SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    The best dam interest of the dam people in the USA be dammed

    As dictated by the dam US government

    The dam people in the dam USA are flooded and cleaning up the dam water damage for six dam months of the year.

    The dam people in the USA suffer the dam drought for the other six dam months of the year

    The Chinese dam policy was to build and keep dams to provide clean renewable electric power, control the dam water and prevent the dam flooding and release the dam water to prevent drought

    THE DAM USA POLICY CREATES LOSS OF DAM LIFE, DAM MISERY AND DAM SUFFERING FOR MILLIONS OF DAM AMERICANS EVERY DAM YEAR.

    AS PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD ASK

    “HOW’S THE DAM U.S.A. SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR YOU?


  • Elwha Supplemental Impact Statement?

    Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

    The installation of Scott Pruitt, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, sued the agency he intends to lead more than a dozen times as Oklahoma attorney general, reinforces expectations.

    “I have no doubt that Scott will return the EPA to its core objectives,” said Republican Senator James Inhofe, also of Oklahoma, adding the agency had been guilty of “federal overreach, unlawful rule making, and duplicative red tape,”

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    National Park Service

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002. Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation; Olympic National Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA; Notice of Intent To Prepare a SUPPLEMENTAL Environmental Impact Statement FILED 9-11-02 

    Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

    (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

     Mar 30 2017, Olympic National Park WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    ——————————————————————————-

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002. MITIGATION PROJECT ISSUES?   IT’S IMPACT ON VISITORS? AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON VISITORS? FILED 9-11-02 

    Water quality or water supply mitigation issues that will be analyzed in the SEIS include impacts of rebuilding the existing rock diversion structure on riparian vegetation, wildlife, water quality and fish; land use related impacts of building permanent water treatment facilities, such as removal of vegetation and soil, use of heavy equipment to build the facilities and its impact on wildlife or VISITORS,

    VISITORS? WOW, IS THAT LIKE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT ON CLALLAM COUNTY TOURISM?

    and hazards of using chlorine and other chemicals required for treatment.    Other environmental issues not related to water quality or supply include providing access to Morse Creek and other tributaries for fisheries protection during dam removal, access to seed stock and protection of young plants in revegetating reservoir lands, changes in driving routes for trucks disposing of rubble, or noise of an onsite rubble crushing operation and its potential effects on wildlife and VISITORS.

    VISITORS? WOW, IS THAT LIKE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT ON CLALLAM COUNTY TOURISM?

    VISITORS? LIKE AN IMPACT STATEMENT ONP INHOLDERS?

    ——————————————————

    Jun 28, 2011

    Olympic National Park mea culpa: ‘Inholder’ blocked from family property

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/olympic-national-park-mea-culpa-8216-inholder-82…

    Jun 28, 2011 – Pearl Rains Hewett stands at a blockade on Olympic Hot Springs Road in Olympic National Park on Monday. — Photo by Chris …

    ————————————————————-

    FISH BEFORE PEOPLE

    Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan – National Park Service

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/upload/Elwha-River-Fish-Management-Plan.pdf

    2008 – ‎Related articles

    THE SITE WILL HELP PRESERVE AND RESTORE ELWHA RIVER CHINNOOK POPULATIONS BY PROVIDING SAFE HAVEN FOR 200,000 YEARLING SMOLTS.

    —————————————————————-

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002.

    Dam removal was determined to be the preferred option for restoration, and the 1996 EIS also identified a desired suite of actions to remove the dams. As a step towards accomplishing these objectives, Congress directed purchase of the dams (which occurred in February 2000 for $29.5 million, as stipulated by Pub. L. 102-495).

    ————————————————————————-

    AS A DELEGATED EIS, THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL DECISION IS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION;

     SUBSEQUENTLY THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE THE SUPERINTENDENT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

     DATED: JULY 9, 2002.JOHN J. REYNOLDS,REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION.[FR DOC. 02-23124 FILED 9-11-02; 8:45 AM]BILLING CODE 4310-70-P

    (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

     Mar 30 2017 WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    Written comments may be delivered by fax to: 360/565-1325; via e-mail to: Brian_Winter@nps.gov; or via postal mail or hand delivery during normal business hours to: Elwha Restoration Project Office, SEIS Comments, 826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 98362.

    ———————————————————————-

    Timeline of the Elwha 1992 to Present – Olympic National Park (U.S. …

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/…/timeline-of-the-elwha-1992-to-present.htm

    THE SITE WILL HELP PRESERVE AND RESTORE ELWHA RIVER CHINNOOK POPULATIONS BY PROVIDING SAFE HAVEN FOR 200,000 YEARLING SMOLTS. … Before his death in 2007, Albright pioneered propagation methods for many plants native to the Northwest.

    ———————————————————————

    Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan – National Park Service

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/upload/Elwha-River-Fish-Management-Plan.pdf

    2008 – ‎Related articles

    PURSUANT TO THE ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FISHERIES RES- TORATION ACT …… 200,000. MORSE CREEK. YEARLING SMOLTS. ON-SITE. 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 …… Spawning ground surveys of live or dead fish and redds can then be.

    —————————————————————————

    Apr 15, 2013

    ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY  200,000  DEAD SMOLT

    SEABURY BLAIR JR. | Elwha too clogged for fish to live – Kitsap Sun

    www.kitsapsun.com/sports/columnists/seabury-blair/356167261.html

    Apr 15, 2013 – … AS MANY AS 200000 CHINOOK SALMON WERE KILLED IN WHAT HAS TO BE ONE OF THE … HATCHERY OFFICIALS REPORTED SEEING HUNDREDS OF DEAD SMOLTS LINING THE … For almost 15 miles, the Elwha River carves through a century’s worth of … ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY  

    JUL 12, 2013 LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE’S HATCHERY

    200, 000  MORE DEAD SMOLT

    400,000 TOTAL DEAD HATCHERY SMOLT…

    —————————————————————–

    The Danger of Putting All Your Eggs in the Hatchery Basket — Wild …

    wildfishconservancy.org › About › Press › Press Clips

    JUL 12, 2013 – ROUGHLY 200,000 HATCHERY COHO SALMON AND 2000 STEELHEAD, RESULTING FROM A PUMP FAILURE AT THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE’S HATCHERY ON THE ELWHA RIVER. …

     SPRING  Apr 15, 2013 THANKS TO MISTAKEN TIMING OF LARGE RELEASE OF SMOLTS AT ONE TIME … PRODUCTION LOST (200,000 DEAD) DUE TO MALFUNCTION OF HATCHERY WATER PUMP …

    The tragedy is: this production could have occurred with much less risk with natural spawning left to the river where fish make their own decisions regarding spawning destination and time, and juveniles determine their own window for outmigration.  Instead these fish have been hi-jacked by the continued belief in hatcheries rather than the proven success story of wild fish recolonization for thousands of years and resulting diversity that hedges its bets against the whims of nature’s unpredictable events.  And we paid $16 million to create this Elwha hatchery fiasco plus further annual investments in taking fish from the river and subjecting them to the persistent belief in hatcheries that is counter to the science — further evidence of the tragic disconnect of science from policy, the latter continually driven by the politics of popular beliefs.

    http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20130711/news/307119990

     ————————————————————————————

     (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

    WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    THE SEIS WILL ALSO ANALYZE CHANGES UNRELATED TO WATER QUALITY

    MITIGATION WHERE APPLICABLE.

    One of these changes is a re-evaluation of

    options to mitigate impacts to septic systems on the Lower Elwha

    Klallam Reservation. Many of the septic systems in the lower lying

    parts of the Reservation may become ineffective when the river level

    and associated groundwater table rises as a result of river channel

    aggradation following dam removal.

    In addition to the points summarized above, further detail has been added to the revegetation plan for the areas currently inundated by the reservoirs; thus, potential impacts of

    actions associated with such revegetation will be addressed.

    ———————————————————–

    Full unedited text

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    National Park Service Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation;

    Olympic National Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA;

    Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [Federal Register: September 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 177)][Notices][Page 57834-57836]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr12se02-94] SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and its cooperating agencies are undertaking a conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process intended to supplement the 1996 Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation final environmental impact statement (1996 EIS).

    Two dams, built in the early 1900s, block the river and limit anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 river miles. The 1996 EIS is the second of two environmental impact statements that examined how best to restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fishery in Olympic National Park. Dam removal was determined to be the preferred option for restoration, and the 1996 EIS also identified a desired suite of actions to remove the dams. As a step towards accomplishing these objectives, Congress directed purchase of the dams (which occurred in February 2000 for $29.5 million, as stipulated by Pub. L. 102-495). However, release of sediment from behind the dams would result in sometimes severe impacts to water quality or to the reliability of supply to downstream users during the dam removal impact period of about 3-5 years, which the 1996 EIS proposed mitigating through a series of specific measures (see below).

    Subsequently, new research and changes unrelated to the implementation project have emerged. Therefore, the primary purpose of this Supplemental EIS (SEIS) will be to identify and analyze potential impacts of a new set of water quality and supply related mitigation measures.

    Background     Elwha Dam was built in 1911, and Glines Canyon Dam in 1925, limiting anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 miles of river (blocking access to more than 70 miles of Elwha River mainstream and tributary habitat). The two dams and their associated reservoirs have also inundated and degraded important riverine and terrestrial habitat and severely affected fisheries habitat through increased temperatures, reduced nutrients, reduced spawning gravels downstream, and other changes. Consequently, salmon and steelhead populations in the river have been considerably reduced or eliminated, and the river ecosystem within Olympic National Park significantly and adversely altered.

    In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (PL 102-495) directing the Secretary of the Interior to fully restore the Elwha river ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries, while at the same time protecting users of the river’s water from adverse impacts associated with dam removal. The records of decision associated with this process indicated removal of both dams was needed to fully restore the ecosystem. However, impacts to water quality and supply will result from release of sediments, which have accumulated behind the dams.

    The 1996 EIS proposed and analyzed mitigation measures to protect water quality and ensure supply for each of the major downstream users. These users included the city of Port Angeles’ municipal and industrial consumers, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s fish hatchery, the state chinook salmon rearing channel, and the Dry Creek Water Association. Many private wells along the river could also be affected, but mitigation proposed for these users would remain substantially the same.    Currently, surface water from a rock fill diversion and intake pipe at river mile 3.3 supplies the city’s industrial clients and the state rearing channel. Mitigation to protect the city’s industrial customers described in the 1996 EIS included the installation of an infiltration gallery to collect water filtered from the riverbed and open-channel treatment with flocculants, chemicals and polymers during dam removal. The city’s municipal customers are supplied with a subsurface Ranney collector on the east-side of the river at river mile 2.8. To maintain water yield, the 1996 EIS [[Page 57835]] proposed a second Ranney collector be built on the river’s west-side, opposite the current collector. A temporary “package” treatment plant to filter water from the Ranney wells would have been operational during dam removal.

    The rearing channel would have been closed during dam removal and chinook production transferred to another state facility.    The tribal hatchery at river mile 1 will be central in protecting and producing Elwha anadromous fish for restoration following dam removal. Water for the hatchery is currently provided through wells and a shallow infiltration gallery. Measures described to protect hatchery water during dam removal included the expansion of the gallery to ensure supply and drilling of two new wells to provide clean groundwater for dilution.

    Dry Creek Water Association (DCWA) currently meets the needs of its members through groundwater wells. These wells would be subject to an increased frequency of flooding following dam removal, as well as increased sediment and mobilization of iron and manganese. The 1996 EIS analyzed two options for DCWA–connection to the city’s water distribution system, or providing additional protection from flooding for the existing DCWA system and treating on site with filtration and chlorination.

    Since December 1996 (when the most recent record of decision was signed), the U.S. Department of the Interior (including Bureau of Reclamation) and its cooperating agencies (including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe) have continued studying and refining elements of the selected alternative. As a result, they have found better solutions for protecting water quality and water supply during and following dam removal. In addition, changes in user needs have come about as a result of factors unrelated to the project.

    For example, chinook salmon and bull trout have both been listed as threatened since 1997, resulting in the requirement to keep the state rearing facility open during dam removal.

    Also, the city of Port Angeles must now meet new standards for the treatment of its municipal supplies. In addition, an industrial customer (Rayonier) which required very high quality water for its operation has since closed.    As a result of these and other changes, the agencies are pursuing an option of building permanent water treatment facilities with varying levels of treatment depending on the ultimate use of the water

    (for additional details, see Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report at www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).  The locations and types of diversions may also change because water collected from the city’s Ranney well is no longer considered to be purely groundwater, but is highly connected to the river and so must be treated as a surface supply.

    In addition, problems associated with subsurface intakes during the 3-5 year dam removal impact period may now outweigh the benefits. These problems include possible clogging and reduced yields, increased costs of providing flood protection, and increased environmental impacts associated with installing and maintaining subsurface structures in or very near the river. Sources of “true” groundwater, which are not so closely connected to the river have been investigated, but do not exist in the quantities required. This leaves surface water as a more attractive option. An alternative of replacing the existing intake structure will therefore be analyzed in the SEIS.

    Feasibility studies indicate surface water could be treated and used for the city’s industrial customer, in combination with well water for the state’s rearing facility and the Lower Elwha Klallam tribal hatchery, and as a backup for the city’s municipal customers. It may also be evaluated as an option to supply DCWA customers.

    The SEIS will also analyze changes unrelated to water quality mitigation where applicable. One of these changes is a re-evaluation of options to mitigate impacts to septic systems on the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation. Many of the septic systems in the lower lying parts of the Reservation may become ineffective when the river level and associated groundwater table rises as a result of river channel aggradation following dam removal. Although the 1996 EIS examined a community mounding system, the number of residents living in the valley part of the Reservation has now increased. The SEIS will evaluate other options which are technically, economically, or environmentally preferable in light of these changes. At this time, the Tribe is considering a variety of options, including individual onsite systems with pressurized pumps, small group treatment options, offsite treatment by others, or combining with other valley residents (who would not be affected by dam removal) to create a community treatment system.

    Since the release of the 1996 EIS, two species of fish cited for restoration have been listed as threatened, and the NPS has worked with USFWS and NMFS staff to further address these species during and following dam removal. Keeping the rearing channel open for chinook salmon production and modifying road culverts within the park to provide access for bull trout to additional tributary habitat are examples of some of the additional actions that the SEIS will examine.

    Environmental Issues     Updated and additional information relevant to decision-making will be presented in the SEIS. In addition to the points summarized above, further detail has been added to the revegetation plan for the areas currently inundated by the reservoirs; thus, potential impacts of actions associated with such revegetation will be addressed. The 1996 EIS envisioned using one or more of nine solid waste disposal areas for rubble and other materials. Some of these may no longer be available, new sites might be added, or recycling of concrete may be economically preferable now.    Water quality or water supply mitigation issues that will be analyzed in the SEIS include impacts of rebuilding the existing rock diversion structure on riparian vegetation, wildlife, water quality and fish; land use related impacts of building permanent water treatment facilities, such as removal of vegetation and soil, use of heavy equipment to build the facilities and its impact on wildlife or visitors, and hazards of using chlorine and other chemicals required for treatment.    Other environmental issues not related to water quality or supply include providing access to Morse Creek and other tributaries for fisheries protection during dam removal, access to seed stock and protection of young plants in revegetating reservoir lands, changes in driving routes for trucks disposing of rubble, or noise of an onsite rubble crushing operation and its potential effects on wildlife and visitors.

    Scoping/Comments     Public scoping for the SEIS will conclude 30-days from the date of publication of this notice. All interested individuals, groups, and agencies are encouraged to provide information relevant to the design, construction, location, or potential environmental effects of desired measures noted above. Please limit comments to the proposal as described in this notice, since prior decisions to restore the ecosystem and anadromous fisheries through dam removal, and selection of the River Erosion alternative as the dam removal scenario, are beyond the scope of environmental impact analysis targeted in the SEIS. [[Page 57836]]

    Additional information and periodic updates will be available at the Web site noted above or by contacting the Elwha Restoration Project Office at (360) 565-1320. All comments must be postmarked or transmitted no later than 30 days from the publication date of this notice; as soon as this date is determined it will be announced on the Web site noted.

    Written comments may be delivered by fax to: 360/565-1325; via e-mail to: Brian_Winter@nps.gov; or via postal mail or hand delivery during normal business hours to: Elwha Restoration Project Office, SEIS Comments, 826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 98362.    If individuals submitting comments request that their name or/and address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold a respondent’s identity as allowable by law. As always: NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered. Decision

    The SEIS will be prepared in accord with all applicable laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the NPS Management Policies (2001) and NEPA guidelines (Director’s Order 12). A 60-day public review of the Draft will be initiated upon its release, which at this time is expected in early 2003; then subsequently a Final will be prepared. Issuance of both documents will be announced via local and regional press, direct mailings, on the Web site noted above, and through the Federal Register.

    AS A DELEGATED EIS, THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL DECISION IS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION;

    SUBSEQUENTLY THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE THE SUPERINTENDENT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002.

    JOHN J. REYNOLDS,REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

    PACIFIC WEST REGION.[FR DOC. 02-23124

    FILED 9-11-02; 8:45 AM]BILLING CODE 4310-70-P